Talk:Arab conquest of Kaikan

Requested move 29 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. uncontested move (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kaikan → Arab conquest of Kaikan – The current context of this article doesn't really covers about the 'Kingdom of Kaikan' and after checking the references, I just found out that this kingdom is barely mentioned in those sources(no in depth information) along with the arab campaigns in those areas. Neither the year of establishmet nor the name of any king is provided in any of those sources. So, the article should be moved. Ajayraj890 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Moreover, none of the sources provide an in-depth account for this kingdom. Atleast it should have provided the years of establishment and de-establishment, the significance of the kingdom, its geographical locations in detail, its roots, successors etc. The article should be moved or be deleted. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you post the link to the WP:RAJ rule? I can't find it by searching on Google. I understand that it has something to do with British Raj historical accounts not being valid. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here is it is. If you are confused with that, check this discussion. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the first link say British Raj sources are only irrelevant for caste related articles? The content in the second link, I could not understand, because I don't know the context. Here you might say that this article is on a Jat kingdom & thus can be viewed as a caste related article. But to this point I would say that this article is more historical & caste only plays a role in classification. If we were to not consider British Raj sources for historical articles, then I'm afraid what little details we do have on Wikipedia would also be rendered not credible. Matarisvan (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. I removed the sources from British era (before 1947) because according to WP:RAJ, the British era sources cannot be used. I think @Sitush can explain this more deeply. The reason for the move request is, the article completely depend on the Arab invasion. The in-dept account of this Kingdom is missing. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.